四分律行事鈔資持記 3.153

3.153

Fourth, in mental resolution: First, it cites the *Mahīśāsaka-vinaya* to present the procedure. The actual declaration is divided into three. First, remotely giving it to the other person allows one to exceed the restricted limit, hence it says 'eleven days.' Below 'Again, as before...', next, one takes it back again; not exceeding the ordinary exception, it is therefore only ten days; this is out of fear that when the sign of dawn arrives, an offense of holding a surplus [robe] would be incurred. Below 'Again, as at first...', one speaks and gives it to that person again, and as before one may exceed [the limit]. The reason it is done this way is, as the Commentary states: since it belongs to another person and the mind of relinquishment is difficult to exhaust, temporarily having it exchanged allows one to extend the time limit; in the end, one must speak it face-to-face before it is truly complete. Next, it cites the *Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya*: either to show that it is identical to an exception, or to prevent doubt and corruption, fearing that people might think mental resolution does not require spoken words. First, it states the judgment. Below 'Internally...', it explains and establishes it. Below, it cites our own Vinaya to show the distinction. Regarding those who presumably do not speak purification, the Commentary says: one is an extra robe, and one is held by determination; alternating their reception and purification, they must not exceed the limit. Considering that the one holding it by determination does not fear the offense of holding surplus, while having no choice regarding the purified one which is about to exceed the limit, it is therefore transferred within ten days. The note suggests it is identical to the *Mahīśāsaka-vinaya*; because the Vinaya's wording is general, one does not dare determine it conclusively, so both views are preserved.